[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

(I tried putting this into an earlier edit, but I must be doing something wrong. I apologize if this appears as a double post!)

I take umbrage with reference to the post about 3ds Max being "mikey mouse". The software cost over $3000.00 (yes, that's three THOUSAND dollars).
Researchers, architects, forensic analysis, scientists and other professionals utilize this software daily. I agree with you that Chunder's sun
solution is incorrect. Here is a screenshot with a correct solution.

For reference, please refer to the photo0016.jpg:

First I set up a scene using a cylinder as a gnomon.
Then I created a "sun" and used the following information obtained from the photograph and from:
www.parks.ca.gov/lat_long_map/default.asp?lvl_id=180

From the EXIF data, we can obtain the date and time: 2007:05:16 17:42:58
Once we have that, we need to enter the coordinates from parks.ca.gov: Latitude: 36.98016. Longitude: -121.93107
Verifying that DST was in effect, I made that notation in the software.
The software then calculated the following sun azimuth and altitude.

As you can see, the numbers are spot on. Can you spot Chunder's mistake? It's an honest one, I assure you. Now that you have a point of reference,
you can make more accurate measurements with regards to the photographs. Look at the shadows on the gnomon in reference to the compass rose in the
screenshot below.

As to the remarks about Chunder's sun being 58' or so away, you need to refer to how 3ds Max (and other high-end packages) calculate light rays.
Remember that the mean distance of the sun is 8.2×10^20 miles at a mean diameter of 8.649×10^5

miles. That 58' feet that you see is just a reference point of a vector solution.

It represents a vector between the central solar ray and the "worlds" center vector coordinates (0,0,0 in 3d space).

The fact that I take umbrage with your remarks by no means implies that I am angry or upset. I simply wanted to clear up a couple of points you
brought up.

I don't think you can show the suns rays as the orange lines because if that was the case the sun would be in more than one location.

the blue line in the front view is the graphical representation of the sun angle.

i can crank that gizmo up and down and
it doesn't affect the the angle, it's a visual representation only.

the orange lines are just my representation of the same angle as a visual aid.
i obviously need to label it.

in the front view if you draw a horizontal line across any object that intersects with the sun rays the angle will be about 16 degrees.

You can only show the suns rays in respect of where the picture was taken, which is the blue line at the bottom, which appears to show that from the
camera's perspective there would be no shadow cast by the arm ?

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;

For the record: It is my opinion that the images are composites. I believe the base photographs to be real, however. Here is my opinion as to how this
was accomplished. First, photographs were taken. The EXIF data was then saved seperately to be added later. A model was composited into the scene,
saved and the EXIF information added. Again, this is only my opinion.

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;

SPF, thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, I appreciate it and am learning something.

Just out of interest, is there an altitude that an object would need to be before, assuming it remains in the horizontal plane, a shadow would not be
cast with the sun at 16 degrees altitude at ground level ?

I imagine the answer would be considerably further than 58 feet, I am just interested as to how much more it would be, are we talking hundreds or
thousands of feet ?

The image above doesn't seem to move, is it possible for you to show what the shadow should look like with the drone in the best possible guess as to
it's horizontal plane. If that can then be compared to the original and there is a noticeable difference I for one would consider it very strong
evidence of a fake.

here's an animation of the object tilting in the horizontal plane using this sun angle;
Nice work spf33 and 11 11 both for proving that the shadows should have been present in the image at that location.

So now what? This should show evidence that this particular photo was created and is a hoax correct...? If so, this certainly casts a dim light on all
of the other drone images at this location as well don't it...Sometimes for the hoaxers its the little details that trips em up, sometimes its the
obvious stuff...

Originally posted by ModernDystopia
I don't want to sound too much like a jerk, but I can't believe people are still buying this stuff..

It's a viral campaign. I knew the second I saw these pics that they were CGI.

If you ask me, it's for Halo 3. They pulled an internet hoax for Halo 2 as well. I also remember someone linking the site these first appeared on to
the Halo 2 hoax site (something about bees..)

Why don't people 'get it'?

It's QUITE easy to say something "OMG It's a hoax", or "OMG it's real", the issue is actually proving it to
the best of our abilities either way if possible. In the case of this particular image (and all of the other drone images in my view) this has been
done here and elsewhere in other threads.

But it really isn't offering anything of use when people make comments like its real, or its a hoax, try to offer some evidence, some analysis
backing up your opinions or beliefs.

Just out of interest, is there an altitude that an object would need to be before, assuming it remains in the horizontal plane, a shadow would not be
cast with the sun at 16 degrees altitude at ground level ?

I imagine the answer would be considerably further than 58 feet, I am just interested as to how much more it would be, are we talking hundreds or
thousands of feet ?

The image above doesn't seem to move, is it possible for you to show what the shadow should look like with the drone in the best possible guess as to
it's horizontal plane. If that can then be compared to the original and there is a noticeable difference I for one would consider it very strong
evidence of a fake.

PS I know I am asking a lot !

[edit on 8-7-2007 by chunder]

I think I have worked out the answer to my own question in that the altitude change would have to be many thousands of feet for there to be any
appreciable change.

A rough calculation shows a 1 metre arm would cast a shadow approx. 30 cms below it with the sun at 16 degrees in approx. the same direction that the
arm points.

It would make things easier for a layman such as myself if the two pictures, the correct shadow and the original, could be shown side by side. Yes, I
know I am asking a lot but I just don't have the skills to do it myself.

GREAT WORK on getting the "shadow issue" resolved in a graphical way so everyone can see the reality.

When I showed this to Jeff Ritzmann and David Biedny back in May they both pointed out, among other things, the shadow was missing but neither of them
had the time or the desire to spend on creating a graphical representation of how it should look with the data to prove it.

Additionally, both of them said these images were created in exactly the same way rwiggins describes in his post above, the real "sky/pole"
photo was taken, exif data saved and the CGI "drone" composited into the scene.

Now that we have a graphical representation of IMPOSSIBLE lighting that anyone can look at maybe we can move beyond the CGI/not CGI argument and start
really digging into WHY and WHO.

Just wondering are any of the *other* forums buzzing with the news? I mean this is fairly conclusive evidence that at least this photo set is a HOAX
unless of course a true believer comes in saying that shadows and light do not act on an alien drone in the same terrestrial ways

But hopefully
that won't happen

Its strange, when news comes in of a find such as the drones, it gets massive press (not mainstream press of course) on forums, blogs, word-of-mouth
etc, but if and when its proven a HOAX or an error, it just kinda slips away and quietly sulks in the corner. In fact some aren't even aware of the
facts and the evidence of a particular hoax, still thinking its real...Why is that?

Just a heads up, I'm squatting in the openminds forum skypecast right now, its an open forum cast, ask questions etc on the topic, starts at 2pm EST
(now).
Heres the link (you need skype installed)....

who said 3Dmax was "mickey mouse"?.... this was dont in max...
this would take about 2-3 weeks to model,and another 10 to 12 hours each picture to render (with scene and textures) the clay type render would be an
hour or so.. maybe longer depending on the type of comp you have.

Thank you, Springer, for the kind words. I think that we, as a community, have had enough of hoaxes. I think that some of the die-hards tend to forget
that we both have the same goals. The difference is that we aren't willing to simply accept what we are given. In fact, speaking for myself only, I
am willing to accept that ufo's (as alien vehicles) might not exist at all if that's what the data demonstrates! I'm willing to go where the data
leads me.

It's amazing what a hoaxer can do with the tools available. However, we have access to those tools as well! The combined experience, energy and
dedication of the ATS community, together with some pretty cool skill sets, serve notice to this and future hoaxers that we aren't willing to accept
anything less than the truth.

I also agree, Springer, it's time for the who and why.

By the way, someone posted a link to a PARC website which contained a list of employees. I noticed a Raj in the list. Coincidence or possible
connection? Did the hoaxer pick up some names here to add credibility to their story?

I would like to especially thank Springer, Jeff Ritzmann, SPF33, 11 11, and David Biedny for their patience and dedication to the community. In
trying to hash this thing out, we have taken some pretty harsh criticisms. In my field, I expect that, but I can see where it might turn some others
away.

Do we have an analyst on board, someone who wouldn't mind going back through the threads and compiling a dataset which may help with the signal to
noise ratio? If we can identify what's relevant with what's not, it would be most helpful. I realize it would be a lot of work, but it might be
helpful in the who and why aspect.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.